Around 10,000 Years Ago, Neolithic People Ate Foxes And Wildcats

DragoNika - stock.adobe.com - illustrative purposes only

Archaeologists have long thought that the bones of small carnivores discovered in early Neolithic settlements in the Levant were from animals hunted for their fur.

However, new research indicates that these creatures, including foxes and wildcats, were actually hunted for food instead.

During the late Epi-Palaeolithic period, between 15,000 and 11,700 years ago, hunter-gatherer communities in the Levant, an area covering present-day Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria, began moving toward animal herding and farming.

But while this pivotal shift is known as the Neolithic Revolution, it wasn’t immediate. Instead, it was a gradual change that continued into the Neolithic era.

Fewer large animals like red deer were hunted in favor of a stronger focus on smaller species, such as gazelle, birds, and fish.

The archaeological evidence of this shift is clear, as animal bones are commonly found in the remains of settlements from this era.

Yet, among these bones, researchers have also uncovered the remains of small carnivores. In particular, between 11,660 and 10,000 years ago, red fox bones appeared often, sometimes in greater numbers than larger game, including gazelles and wild boar.

The remains of wildcats are even found at other sites in the Levant, but they are less common than red fox bones.

The bones were previously thought to be the remains of animals hunted for their fur, or their bones and teeth were believed to have been used for symbolic reasons, particularly in the case of foxes.

DragoNika – stock.adobe.com – illustrative purposes only

Sign up for Chip Chick’s newsletter and get stories like this delivered to your inbox.

So, the idea that these animals were hunted for food and formed a regular part of the human diet was overlooked.

Now, the latest study analyzed animal bones discovered at the site of Ahihud, which is 10,000 years old, in Western Galilee, Israel.

To identify the bones, the team first treated them with acetic acid to remove any limescale, then washed them and analyzed them under microscopes.

This method helped the researchers determine the species of the bones, such as foxes, wildcats, and Cape hares, and classify each specimen by bone type.

A total of 1,244 fragmented bones were discovered, with about 30% coming from mountain gazelles in residential areas and 12% from red foxes.

Additionally, 16% of the bones belonged to small carnivores like red foxes, wildcats, European badgers, Egyptian mongooses, beech martens, and other mustelids. Many of these bones displayed butchery marks, indicating they had been processed with tools.

“Over 52% of the cut marks on fox remains can be attributed directly to butchering activity (dismembering and filleting), based on their location and morphology. Nine out of 10 of these cut marks were found on the humerus and femur,” the researchers wrote.

“Cut marks on the humerus and femur never result from skinning activity.”

When it came to wildcats, butchering was linked to about 83% of the knife marks, primarily on the leg bones, with the remaining marks related to skinning.

Moreover, burn marks on the bones were present at levels similar to or higher than those found on deer bones at the site.

For red foxes, almost 56% of the burn marks were on the limbs, while the marks on wildcat bones were mainly on the upper limbs, all of which are tied to meat processing.

These findings indicate that both foxes and wildcats weren’t simply hunted for their fur but also as food. So, small carnivores should be classified as game animals when scientists study the animal economy of Neolithic societies.

“Our study provides clear and strong evidence that the inhabitants of Ahihud hunted small carnivores, in particular foxes and wildcats, to make extensive use of their remains,” the researchers concluded.

“They stripped their pelts, extracted meat for food, and probably made additional use of the remains, such as the making of bone tools and ornaments.”

To read the study’s complete findings, which have since been published in Environmental Archaeology, visit the link here.

0What do you think?Post a comment.

More About: